WHY CALIFORNIA SHOULD INVEST IN THE ELECTRIC BUS

California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) cutting goals from the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) loom large as our state begins a cap-and-trade market on Jan. 1, 2013. The program will reduce emissions from the utility, industrial, and transportation sectors, which cause 85 percent of the state’s total CO2 emissions. Yet the policies in place are too modest, and California should update and electrify public transit.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has regulatory authority on GHG emissions, according to AB 32. Since 2006, CARB has focused on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the Clean Car Standard to address transportation emissions. These measures do not directly tackle subsectors of transportation, like trucking or more importantly, mass transit.

CO2 emissions in the transportation sector mostly come from the combustion of petroleum. CARB’s targets so far have only approached improving efficiency in vehicle technology. This will reduce emissions, but this only cuts the frosting off the cake. It is time for CARB to tackle the bigger issue of reducing gasoline by getting cars off the road. One low-cost solution is electrifying municipal bus systems.

With the success of Tesla Motors and the Nissan Leaf, electric vehicles (EVs) have re-entered the market, suggesting commercial viability in the bus world. Formerly, the limitations on EVs were battery properties and “range anxiety,” or the fear of running out of battery charge, mid-drive. Improved efficiencies of lithium-ion (laptop) batteries have overcome design and cost barriers. EV opponents argue electric vehicles do not reduce CO2 emissions because they require electricity to charge them, and our power plants are dirty. But a recent Climate Central study showed that EVs easily have three to four times lower CO2 emissions per mile than a typical gasoline vehicle in California, due to the state’s relatively clean electricity mix.

Why are we not investing our current electric car technology into our municipal bus fleets? This application exists – Chattanooga, Tenn.; Quebec City, Quebec, and Adelaide, Australia, are just three of many cities that have already adopted the electric bus. One major advantage of electric buses involves charging. Buses can be recharged daily at the same location, because city fleets have a “home” yard for the vehicles. There is no need to charge the buses on routes because with an appropriately sized battery pack, the buses can return to the charging ports in between shifts or at night. The impact of charging this fleet on the electrical grid is lessened because electricity is cheapest and most available “off-peak,” or during nights.

Another advantage of this technology is the absence of tailpipes (no fuel is combusted). The supplementary health benefits related to air quality are therefore significant, as there will be less soot in high-traffic pedestrian zones. Additionally, cutting soot emissions can reduce the short-term impacts of climate change.

A statewide municipal bus fleet will also have consumer benefits. Volatile petroleum prices have affected the fare structure of transit systems throughout the state. The Bay Area’s Caltrain is just one example of a public transportation system pursuing electrification to stabilize fares in response to precarious fuel costs. If our systems adopt electric buses, fares would depend on local electric power generation, which is cheaper and more dependable than foreign oil.